Heritage as civic asset

Robert H. McNulty summarises his US and global experience in 8 steps to put heritage to work

Serving Today’s Needs

It is mainstream to say that heritage should be deemed an asset for the future. “Every conservation activity should be deemed to be future-oriented,” said Daniele Pini at a forum sponsored by the Getty Trust identifying key challenges of improving conserving historic urban environments. He went on to say,

“There must be engagement of inhabitants, users and visitors. The preservation of historic communities will depend upon a holistic approach to the urban environment that integrate these efforts to sustain heritage with the various measures that it serves to make cities engaging, enriching and livable. How can we engage people that are in need of assets? This then becomes a critical resource linking heritage resources as a driver for not only economic assets but also social cohesion. Heritage must be deemed an asset for the future.”

In a recent survey, undertaken by the design firm Sasaki Association, of 1,000 urbanites in six American cities on what makes a city great, 74 percent said historic places and landmarks are what they love about their city; 21 percent said cultural offerings, and 17 percent said parks and public spaces. Fifty-five percent said their favorite city experience took place outdoors, on a street or in a park. Fifty six percent said the iconic image of their community was on a historic building; 57 percent of people said they would stop and look at a historic building while only 19 percent would do the same for a modern building.

In 2011 the University of Pennsylvania School of Design convened a symposium with Place Economics and stated, “Economic studies set up decisions, but do not make decisions. Often the studies are ignored in the context of political will. It is a danger to focus too narrowly on economic values. Preservation consists of both public goods and private goods; there is mixed nature. Historic preservation must yield benefits such as community cohesion, social capital and are not just captured by looking at property values.” They further went on to say that,

“Social impacts of heritage have had very little research. They need to translate heritage into the social capital needs of citizens such as reduction of accidents, health, anti-social behavior, fear, civic pride, all areas that need to be addressed in terms of the role that heritage plays today.”

The National Trust for Historic Preservation in the United States recently commissioned an analysis of how a mixture of historic buildings in three American cities — San Francisco, Seattle, and Washington, D.C. — correlated with 40 different characteristics of vibrancy. They found that the presence of older, smaller and age-diverse buildings have a strong correlation with indices of livability such as walkability (having higher walk scores), new business (a higher percent of new businesses being formed in such neighborhoods), younger residents (the median age of people living in such communities is lower), diversity (neighborhoods with small, older buildings have a broader mix of people); nightlife (cell phone used on Friday nights are higher in such neighborhoods than others); density (the more residents, the more buildings per square foot in neighborhoods with small, older buildings than in new, larger buildings).

This work done in 2014–15 by the Trust shows that you can quantify the livability values of preserving a diverse stock of heritage and historic resources within our communities. What has not been quantified is the fact the social capital, bootstrapping opportunities of applying heritage, architecture, arts and culture, and environmental resources to assist those in need in addressing social challenges for today. We must put heritage to work today in building today’s community and meeting our citizens’ changing needs.

What is Needed?

More Comprehensive List of Cultural Heritage Assets

Before designing a plan for developing and promoting a community’s cultural heritage assets, decision makers need to know what assets and amenities currently exist (see the RSA’s Heritage Index). Broad-based public involvement can surface little-known details about historical occurrences. Families may have old letters or other documents that add context to familiar events, and oral histories can tell forgotten stories about places and people.

More Widespread Community Involvement and Support

By design, this approach involves greater community participation than more conventional planning processes. Some cultural heritage initiatives may require governmental action such as granting a tax abatement or allocating public revenue to a project. A broad-based public participation process is more likely to generate widespread support for making these expenditures.

Trust, Respect and Dignity

When public deliberation processes are well run and individuals act in good faith, the sense of trust, respect and dignity can increase among participants even though serious differences in perspective are not overcome. The consensus judgment reached through such a process does not mean that everyone is in full agreement. Nevertheless, honest disagreements honestly discussed can lead people of opposing opinions to better understand and respect each other.

Self-Confidence and Community Pride

Taking part in a public dialogue about the community’s cultural heritage and how best to promote it to tourists can boost self-confidence and the sense of community pride among participants. Some individuals may find the experience of having something to contribute and of being taken seriously in a public forum to be a relatively new experience that may give them more confidence about playing a more active role in their community. Others may simply have a stronger and deeper sense of pride about where they live as the cultural heritage initiative gave them a better understanding of their community’s history.

Better Decisions and Equitable Sharing of Benefits

With more participants drawn from more varied walks of life, a community building process changes the “business-as-usual” approach to making decisions. More information and different perspectives can lead to better decisions, and the development initiative is more likely to be more broadly conceived for the benefit of everyone in the community. For example, improvements in infrastructure can be designed to both appeal to tourists and be of use to residents. Job training programs can be set up and employment decisions made to benefit community members as well.

Appeal to Potential Outside Funders

A proposal for a cultural heritage tourism initiative that incorporates widespread public participation indicates that the community is organized and supportive of the effort. These qualities are attractive to outside funders, which is a particularly important consideration during an economic downturn when funding is scarce.

More Sustainable Outcomes

Properly designed and managed, cultural heritage tourism initiatives can continue to generate income for as long as people travel. Partners considers sustainability to be the number one objective when implementing such projects. Sustainability is undermined if the project is simply a one-off tourist attraction project that does not continue to keep pace with the changing expectations of the tourism industry. This problem is common to most tourist attractions in general, but there is a specific threat to the sustainability of cultural heritage tourism attractions as well. When a community’s heritage is the substance of what is offered to visitors, protecting that heritage is essential. Ensuring that increased tourism does not destroy the very qualities that attracted tourists in the first place can be a major challenge in heritage tourism programs.

Shared Economic Benefits

Notwithstanding all of its other benefits, the development of cultural heritage assets is an economic development strategy. Communities can engage in a variety of projects to build trust, increase engagement and solve local problems. Cultural heritage tourism is designed to bring economic resources into the community. No other approach to developing cultural heritage assets can provide the package of benefits that a community building perspective can. For the reasons outlined above, a development approach centered on community engagement can identify more cultural assets, be more attractive to outside funders, produce more sustainable outcomes, and share the benefits more equitably within the community.

Cultural heritage tourism initiatives that are developed through a public participation process are more likely to be designed and implemented to remain attractive to tourists without jeopardizing the things that community members prize about their cultural heritage.

Robert H. McNulty is founder and president of Partners for Livable Communities